Pages

Monday, October 20, 2014

Eve Vegas 2014 - Ship and Module Round Table

I am in a food coma from the buffet as I try to look over the scrawled lines of black that constitutes my fast note handwriting. This session was one of the longest and most crowded which will surprise no one. It also started first thing in the morning so it filled after it started leading to some possible rehashes of topics. A few times we go on about a topic for quite a while and have discussions.

In general, in feedback from the convention, we have asked for these to be recorded in some way. Until then, here is my rehash.

Q: Make the new T3 Minmatar Destroyer vertical.
A: I'd like that as well and will bring it up with the art team.

Q: New jump changes - Black ops don't have any long distance repping ships.
A: These limits are known. BlackOps are unique in what they do. I don't think we will make a mass produced Etena to go along with them. but we are not happy with the current state of T3 repping subsystems.

Q: Battle Cruiser and Battleship warp speeds. They are so slow that it feels as if we are giving up too much potential and possibility to use these ships.
A: We want there to be a large, noticeable difference in warp speeds between the classes.

Q: Specifics on the Tug?
A: Two and a half fitted battleships maybe.
Q: Slots and rigs?
A: It should have some slots.

Q: This was a question about improving the Nidhoggur's rep bonuses for structures for the most part and its lack of bonuses.
A: We could buff the reps. We can consider looking at the capital reps. We are reducing the hit points on these structures.

Q: Last year there was discussion about links coming on grid as an important change.
A: It is still on the radar. We want warfare links to be in battle or in range. But doing it in a performance way is still behind the scenes.

Q: Systems with link jammers? (Sov upgrade I believe)
A: Maybe it is something we can consider. It would not be something you could just mass spam to every single system.

Q: How about if links lasted for a set time and then had to be reaplied?
A: We will probably go that way.(Note: There was some discussion about buffs and debuffs and more flexability to what linking was and how it worked somewhere in this general area.)
Q: Will we get scram drones?
A: Scramming drones are not something I think we will do.(Note: There was a brief discussion about some broken aspects of e-war drones at the moment and them saying they may give drones a break from being touched for right now.)
Q: Force Projection - How about tying down capital ships to a logistical base. That type of cost and anchoring does not seem to exist. Something like they are teetered to depending on a PI colony on a planet or something to support them. Countries can't just deploy all their carriers because of logistical limitations and I don't see that in Eve.
A: The idea has been bounced around a lot. The fuel cost is one anchoring cost that caps have. We raised that recently, remember? But doing it in a way that fights against playing the game is not fun. It would be hard to make this fun and interesting game play. Also, we don't have a date for a super rebalance but when we do we want to rebalance them from the ground up.

Q: 1000MN MWD?
A: We have thought about it. The problem is making it more then a fast align module and having interesting reasons to use it.

Q: Will we fix capital warping by Phobe?
A: We have changed how caps war to gates. For a while a Titan could never actually approach a gate and get there. The bump mechanics are the same. Yes, they will starburst if they don't jump fast enough or if they land in bubbles.

Q: Will you change how Titans Fleet Warp?
A: A lot of the bugs should be fixed on the current version of Sisi now.

Q: E-War like target painters. This was a question geared towards a new ship class that can use e-war against e-war resistant ships.
A: Maybe. We have no plans to commit to changes like this until we know how we are rebalancing capitals and super capitals. We don't want to make a totally new ship class that may be redundant with the rebalance.

Q: Clone vat bays rebalanced to be useful?
A: We certainly want them to be more useful and have interesting game play around them.

Q: The invention blog talks about capital invention. Are we about to see T2 capital?
A: That was in regards to freighter which are considered capital invention products.

Q: The reduced need for cyno alts means fewer subscriptions. Is CCP worried about this?
A: We absolutely expect there to be a reduction due to cyno accounts. We think that the balance this change is bringing will be good and bring other people to the game or back that will compensate.

Q: In regards to cyno alts, why not add something to the skill tree for them to get those accounts back?
A: Maybe.

Q: Stealth bombers? Could defender missiles be used as an anti bomb weapon?
A: That is an idea seen with a lot of potentual. One problem is that it requires a rebuild of all the code behind defenders. We also have to be careful bcause that scalres in a very powerful way.

Q: Was the bomber change focused around nerfing ISBoxer?
A: No.
Q: Why was decloaking changed?
A: Idea was to make people orginize and work together and with each other.
Q: Yes but ISBoxers are already saying that they can beat this and just set their accounts to warp to different ranges. It is harder for individuals to coordinate then it is for an ISBoxer to set his accounts.
A: Yes. People bombed successfully before the delcoaking change and I believe that they will continue to do so. If we see that people cannot be successful with the changes are are willing to irradiate on them.

Q: It hits a lot of other types of cloaky game play.
A: Yes it does. We know. And we will watch. If people cannot cope we will make changes.

Q: Can we at least see our cloaked fleet mates?
A: Potentially.

Q: Battleship and battlecruiser quality of life issues with the current warp speeds. (Note: This asker was not in the room for the earlier question.)
A: We want them to be different and we want them to be notably different but we may reiterate on it later.

Q:T2 Reactive armor hardeners?
A: Maybe. We have not done T2 for any of those items that have been released.

Q: Rorqual changes?
A: We are not read to announce them yet. We'd like to give the ship a reason or bring it to a point where you want to take it outside of your POS shields. The form of this we don't know. Maybe some sort of invulnerability field so that there is a fight over this ship.
Q: Will it still be focused on industry?
A: Yes.

Q: Changes to acceleration gates to allow supers to use them?
A: This will be a case by case basis. If there are good places to let supers use acceleration gates we will look. We don't want them winding up in ridiculous places.

Q: When will POS defenses become better?
A: We are giving a buff to POS weapons in Phoebe.

Q: Blops Battleships and jump fatigue. The addition of jump fatigue kills blops usage because you can only do one and you are fatigued for an hour.
A: We are looking into Blops now. They also have 1/2 of the fatigue gain. We are open to tweaking that. The fatigue is currently short enough for multiple blops runs. The thread has been updated.

Q: Outposts - Can we have defenses on them?
A: Maybe in the future when stations can be destroyed.

Q: Ishtar Online is not good game play.
A: I would not be surprised if we keep chipping away at the Ishtar until it is in a better place.

Q: What do they have a warp speed increase for T2 ships over their T1?
A: We decided that was a definitive difference between T1 and T2 ships. That T2 tend to get a faste warp speed and we adjust from there. In Phoebe for instance a T2 hull will be slower ten its T1 counter parts. We are still experimenting and tweaking thing.

Q: Rorqual: Could we have it so that the ore hold can carry PI stuff? Minerals?
A: It is doable and something to consider. We are not happy with the current state of ore bays in the game in general.

Q: Why can't we destroy outpost upgrades?
A: The outpost system is a mess. It would not be trivial to let you destroy upgrades. The current process is terrible.

Q: How about destroying IHUB or JB upgrades?
A: That is a more reasonable bit of code so maybe.

Q: Drastically increase the size of null to null wormholes so that we can still drop each other with a sizable capital fleet.
A: That is interesting. It can be done now. But probably not enough mass to get a decently sized cap fleet through.

Q: Your stance on jump clones in station? Can we switch between clones in the same station and not receive the timer penalty?
A: There is some movement to have change to the implant and clone system to make them more, separate systems instead of the current work around. There will be some big changes in that realm.

Q: Any thoughts for jump fatigue skills?
A: Adding a skill is always a maybe. We think that adding skills right now will make the introduction too complicated. But this is only the first pass.

Q: Jump Fatgigue is capped out at a month. Will it go down when we are unsubbed?
A: I'll have to double check with CCP Nullabor.

Q: Glass cannons? Details?
A: These modules will use current skills used for T2 weapons. First iteration is in short range for small, medium and large. The idea is that they will be better at damage then T2 but worse in range but better in tracking. We are still working on the balance.
Q: How will that balance with freighter ganking?
A: Cost right now. But we are looking at the balance of using them when it comes to ganks.
Q: Will the resists reduce when they are fitted?
A: Yes
Q: Where do you think people will use them?
A: Faction frigates and things with current low resits. The goal is to see what people will make of this vs having an exact plan for them to use it.
Q: People will use these for siege fleets
A: Yes and we are watching this
Q: So sniping?
A: That is why we are starting with close range weapons first
Q: BPO's?
A: Nope. BPCs from a rare exploration site.
Q: Can we use invuls and such to raise resists?
A: Nope. They set resists to zero and there is no way to improve them.

Q: Are there still ghost sites? I have never seen one.
A: Yes. They are spawning and being run regularly.

Q: Some form of orbital strike to disrupt PI?
A: It would be an interesting idea when we go back to PI and update it.

Q: Glass Cannon capital sized weapons?
A: Not in this go around

Q: Module tiericide? Recons?
A: They are coming.
Q: Philosophy for rebalancing recons?
A: It is still early for that. All of them have to have a use including the Pilgrim. No date yet. It is on a high priority list. And yes there are a few T2 groups left to touch.

Q: Rebalancing logi?
A: They are on the list to be rabalanced.

Q: Ring mining?
A: It never moved past a cool phase. Maybe in the future but it is not in any current design plan.

Q: Will you ever allow us to put a ship with ozone into a carrier?
A: Maybe we can look at that in the future rebalance

Q: Will glass cannons have new skills?
A: No they will use the current skills that you need for T2 weapons.

Q: Will we finally see T2 cap modules?
A: There are no direct plans but it is possible. There is room to expand the meta types for capital modules.

Q: Glass Cannons - Are they a module or a slot?
A: They are a gun that you use.

Q: Skills for T3 destroyers?
A: They will be a reasonable train like T2 frigates are. They will require destroyer V and have a racial skill that trains like a T2 frigate skill.

Links

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. CCP hf. has granted permission to Low Sec Lifestyle to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, Low Sec Lifestyle. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.